The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1383•Emilia Portillo v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 4th Cir. 1986 . 2 Unpublished opinions are not…
00-1383Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitSep 26, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1383
EMILIA PORTILLO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
and
JUAN SANTOS PORTILLO,
Plaintiff,
versus
NORDSTROM, INCORPORATED; JORGE SILVA,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge.
(CA-98-794-WMN)
Submitted: August 22, 2000 Decided: September 26, 2000
Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Philip B. Zipin, Stephani L. Hillman, GAGLIARDO & ZIPIN, Silver
Spring, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas J. Flaherty, Elizabeth C.
Smith, HUNTON & WILLIAMS, McLean, Virginia, Ralph Michael Smith,
DECHERT, PRICE & RHOADS, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
-- 1 of 2 --
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
February 25, 2000, the district court’s record shows that it was
entered on the docket sheet on February 28, 2000. Pursuant to
Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
the date that the judgment or order was entered on the docket sheet
that we take as the effective date of the district court’s
decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
1986).
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emilia Portillo appeals the district court’s order granting
summary judgment in favor of Appellees in Portillo’s sex discrim-
ination action. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we af-
firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Portillo v.
Nordstrom, Inc., No. CA-98-794-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 28, 2000). * We deny
Appellee Jorge Silva’s motion to strike portions of Appellant’s
brief. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.